Skip to main content

tv   Road to the White House  CSPAN  March 27, 2011 6:30pm-8:00pm EDT

6:30 pm
involved? >> mike pence is the one who offered the amendment for the house republicans. are there going to be attempts to continue to go after funding for planned parenthood, whether it is part of the budget or not? >> most definitely. right now, the situation that's going to an un -- that's going to unfold next week on the hill is that this provision to get rid of the funding for planned parenthood is attached to this broader house-passed bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. to get a compromise with the senate the senate majority leader harry reid, says he will not only not allow that amendment to stay on but hell no, he will not allow that to stay on the bill. whether it stays on our not is going to be its own problem but it will come back in different forms.
6:31 pm
there is other legislation that also tinkers with federal funding for family-planning and abortion services. >> she was quick to bring up that on the senate side, they've got some republicans with them on this. >> they do, but even if they did not, there's no way any be funding of planned parenthood gets out of the senate. the president won't sign it and it's one of those political lines your not going to get any major democrat to cross. but to give you a picture of the politics of this, as we were discussing a moment ago republicans in the house were able to pass the bill defunding npr. i know from watching conservatives in the rest of the country, some were disappointed that republicans did that separately and didn't included as part of the budget. they thought they were not released pending up and challenging democrats in the senate and doing it separately was a way out. just to give you the mindset of
6:32 pm
some in the republican base outside of washington, that's where this planned parenthood is wrapped up in, but it is not happening. they will get their money because harry reid, chuck schumer, president obama are not going to allow this to happen. >> thank you very much for being part of "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i am a numbers guy. >> as a visual op-ed columnist for the "new york times" charles blow uses charts and graphs. >> i don't aside and going to talk about a subject and then go look for data. i search for data first and see this as something interesting or something that agrees with an opinion i have for confirms something or sometimes surprises me and would surprise my
6:33 pm
readers. >> that's tonight at 8:00 on c- span. >> our series of interviews of likely gop candidates continues with rick santorum. we will talk with him about his political career, when he began thinking of running for president and why and which is using things will be important in the 2012 campaign. states' rights, health care, his of view -- his views on abortion and his catholicism. this is about 50 minutes. >> in 2009, i felt the need to mix it up with obama care coming down the pike. when i saw what was happening in washington d.c., i could not sit
6:34 pm
on the sidelines anymore. i had to engage. i'm obviously not a tea party guy, but the same motivations a lot of the tea party people went out there. i felt like this was a tipping point. if the government took over the health-care system, america as we know it, as my grandfather and father came to this country, that place with no longer exist. i just went out and started talking and working on campaigns and helping people around the country trying to stir people up and provide a message. i got a lot of feedback saying you should think about doing this again running for something. i find out what i went to iowa, c-span covered my speech. other folks started to pay attention and they said you are
6:35 pm
running for president. i said i'm just going around the states trying to help out. in some respects, i kept going back to iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina, because every time i did, i got covered. that's why did it. i wanted to be heard. i was encouraged by people in those states to start thinking about it. that is how this happened, really by accident. >> you are quick to point out you are not a tea party guy. >> i'm not -- cannot not going to claim the metal bat i'm -- i am not going to claim the mantle live in a tea party. they were brought out because of what's going on in washington d.c. so i'm very sympathetic with what they're doing and i think they have been a great service to the country. i was just aligning my motivations with going out there and we engaging as opposed to
6:36 pm
engaging. >> if you run why do you want to be president? >> i believe our country is that a tipping point. not just economically, but culturally as well as we have seen recently from a national security point of view. we need someone who believes in america and america first principles and a record that demonstrates i have the courage of my convictions to fight for those principles and fight for limited government, to fight for a government that believes we are a great country because of our people. our people are free and free people individually and collectively have created the greatest country in history. not a powerful group of people who can plan the course of america. that's not how america became a great.
6:37 pm
it did not become great because of things being done in washington d.c.. the people in washington d.c. believed our country would be great if three people were given the ability to pursue their dreams, do what god's call in their life was and we would have a better country and we would be our brother's keepers and we would create this great society from the bottom up. and we did. and now we have a group of people who believe we can perfected by doing it from the top down. i disagree with that. i believe we need someone who can paint division as to what american -- what america can be going forward. it is not control and power here in washington d.c.. it's going back to the principles that made us great. >> what is the state of america today? >> we are at a turning point. i say all the time that the first thing that needs to be done in 2013, and it may get done before then, but it is to
6:38 pm
repeal obama care. we need to begin the process of backing off the federal government of creating this society that believes in people instead of government, believes in freedom the opportunity to succeed greatly and even fail greatly. that destructive and constructive capitalism is what has improved the overall quality of life in america and change the world. >> let me ask you about two things in the health care bill. the department of health and human services, if you have children headed to college they get back in the workforce, they can stay on your plan until the age of 26. is that a good thing? >> most states had provisions like that. that's something the federal government doesn't need to do. if it's a good idea, states can implement that and put in place.
6:39 pm
if you look at a lot of the things the federal government sticks their nose and, frankly they don't need to stick their nose in. these are things that according to the constitution, the states are left to do. insurance is regulated state-by- state. the states could go ahead and do it and if people like that idea -- we don't need a federal government -- if you look at the thousands of pages of bills it's one small part that happens to be popular. if it's popular, it will get past in other states. we certainly found a justification for the government takeover of health care system and mandating everyone has to be covered, what they're covered with. i was just in south carolina talking to an insurance company there. almost 80% of the plans they offer, the benefits would be increased under obama care. driving up costs to everyone because the federal government says this is the insurance policy you have to have a
6:40 pm
minimum, which means you have to pay more. there's no customization personalization, individualization. it's smart people in washington who think they can plan better than you can decide for yourself and that's the wrong approach. >> the white house argument is if you did not have health care insurance, the emergency room become issue are -- >> has not the case in massachusetts. emergency room visits went up. guess what? give people access to free health care, they're going to end up using it just as and efficiently as before. that is why you cannot have the government say here is what we are going to give you. you have to have a system in place that engages the individual, makes them have scan in the game. i think it is vitally important we have health insurance coverage for everyone. but we have to do it in a way that engages the individuals so
6:41 pm
they have some interest in, financial interest in the health care they are consuming. if not, we will get a misallocation of resources. this bill which is scheduled to cost over $2 trillion will be much more than that unless we do something to bring people involved. it is this group of people in washington, led by president obama, who believe they're smart enough to tell you everything you need to do as opposed to saying we are going to trust individuals. here is obama care, a program i'm advocating is called you care. >> what is your view of mitt romney's health care plan he signed into law in massachusetts? >> he had the right to do that. i don't believe president obama's bill is constitutional. i don't believe the federal government has the right to tell
6:42 pm
individuals with a can or can't buy, anymore than i can force you to buy that suit. i believe that's wrong. the states, on the other hand, under the constitution have the right to do it. he had the right to do it. it was not the right thing to do. individual mandates and a prescriptive, top down from the state, as to how the state is going to run the program is not working well. people joining the ranks of the insured are not doing it through private sector insurance. as you saw, governor patrick tried to freeze any kind of premium increases. they're driving up costs and they will say to the insurance companies you can charge any more even though costs are going up. this is as heavy prescriptive idea that people can work this out and government has to do it. is not the right approach to take. >> will it be an issue in the
6:43 pm
republican primary? >> i believe obama care is the most important domestic policy issue. not just health care, it's not just the size and scope of government but it's a huge impact on our economy and of the sword of damocles out there with taxes and regulations coming down the pike i'm sure -- i have heard from businesses, it's creating a level of uncertainty that is freezing businesses and what of the reasons we're not saying the rebound we would like to see is obama care. >> what about governor romney's plan. will that be an issue in the primary? >> you need to have someone out there who believes in you care, not romney care. fed governor telling everybody what kind of care or obama telling everybody what kind of care they're going to have or a system that allows for a market
6:44 pm
focused on youth and letting you decide the kind of health care you want. >> you served two terms in the house and two terms in the senate. the "new york times" described this way -- a fast rising gop star. did you view yourself as a fast rising star? >> no because fast rising stars tend to burn out and say. i saw myself as someone who was there, had a purpose for being there, engaged in that issues and, across the board, one of the things i felt a privilege was representing a diverse state like pennsylvania and have a range of experience and a range of people with interest in things, i was always -- it was interesting people would bring lots of great ideas and have lots of opportunity to talk about those ideas here in d.c., whether national security issues make some major pieces of legislation worked on, i
6:45 pm
worked on agriculture policies i worked on social welfare policies, there probably was not a bill that passed in the 12 years i was in the senate that was dealing with the poor that i was not heavily involved in some way or another. the diversity of my state opened up a big field issues for me to be able to work on the people in my state were interested in. i looked at that is what my job was, to keep plugging away, not worrying about your star rising but worrying about trying to do the job and i look back and have a pretty long record of accomplishments we were able to get done on a bipartisan basis and implementation of conservative ideas consistent with the positions i advocate. >> you are raised in the pittsburgh area. how did you get there? >> my parents were working for the veterans administration after the war. they got married in the mid '50s and were living in west
6:46 pm
virginia when they met. the closest hospital, my mother was almost 41 i was born, they needed day for -- my mother was almost 40 when i was born. she is considered old to have children back then. i was born in winchester. my parents moved to butler, pa. when i was 7 years old and spent the next 10 years there. i went to illinois, graduated from high school in illinois because my parents were transferred with the va. i grew up on public housing. the always lived on the va grounds. there's a great atmosphere to grow up there and i had a lot of interactions with our veterans and came to have a great amount of respect for our military and for those who served. as my parents did. i went to penn state and came back to pennsylvania and state ever since. >> before running for the house
6:47 pm
what were you doing? >> i was practicing law in pittsburgh. i have an mba -- have an m.b.a. from the university of pittsburgh and went to work for a state senator. i was his chief of staff for five years and during the last three of those five years, i went to law school and graduated from law school and decided wanted to come home to pittsburgh and plant some roots there. i end up practicing law for a few years and felt like one of those things where not a plan, not when i wanted to do, but but i was not happy with the congressman representing me so i ran against him. >> who did you challenge? >> [unintelligible] he was a 14-year congressman, a chairman of the energy and
6:48 pm
commerce committee. he had never gotten less than 60% of the votes. it was not a nomination at lazard to fight for. there were not a lot of people interested in running against him. i put my name on the ballot. a poll taken six months before the election and my name was taken -- my name was at 6%. i was told by my pollster to go back to work because you are not going to win this race. i was outspent three to one and it was a bad election year. it was mid term of bush 41. the top of the ticket was bob casey running for governor, getting 60% of the vote. i look at that race and it was a miracle. i don't know of many other races were you get spent -- you get outspent by that amount and you win. i knew that potentially my days were numbered because in 1992,
6:49 pm
in years ending with 2, there's a redistricting year. pennsylvania lost two seats. alice told by my republican and democratic colleagues that i was going to be one of those two seats and i was. they took my district and broke into three different districts and my home was put into a district that was well over 70% democratic in registration against a 22-year democratic incumbents who decided he was not up to the challenge of running against me and ended up winning the race again. bill clinton was elected president, he won my district overwhelmingly. george bush only got 21% in my district but i was able to win and turn it into a senate race in 1994. >> we have elected president to have been in the senate and have been governor.
6:50 pm
should it be a requirement to have executive experience to serve as president? >> i don't think it should be a requirement. we have had folks who didn't have any executive experience, just legislative experience, guys like abraham lincoln. they did a pretty good job taking on the responsibility. you have to look at their leadership qualities, their character, their ability to paint a vision for the country and lead an articulate that vision. you have to look at the people you are surrounded with, the history of that person, their ability to work across the aisle in washington d.c. -- it's highly unlikely will have a situation like barack obama had with a super majority in the house and senate and be able to do things with one party. look at my time in the senate. we got a lot of things done and was able to take leadership. i don't think anyone would have called me a squished on the issues.
6:51 pm
i was known as a firebrand conservative but i got things done. i was able to work with people when we found common ground. >> is there one thing you are particularly proud of? >> the welfare reform bill in 1996 that past, i had as much as an imprint on that bill -- a lot of people had imprints on that, not taking credit for offering at, but i take credit for the shape of it. i was in the house on the ways and means committee and happen to be the ranking member in 1993 and 1994 and was asked to draft a welfare reform bill. i chaired that process and coming up with the contract of america welfare reform bill, it was hard work, it was my work product. when i came to the senate, i'm a freshman member and welfare is a
6:52 pm
big issue and work with a chairman of the finance committee and john ashcroft and judd gregg who were involved in the group to put the senate bill together, it turned out the week before the welfare bill was to come on the floor, the chairman of the financial committee designed -- resigned, bob packwood, and we were left with a new chairman who did not know the bill that well. as the old saying goes, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. i went to the leader, bob dole, and said this is something i know well and like to be involved in. he said just get up there. in the senate, you get up there and start talking, if you know your talking about people will give you room. i end up sitting in the chair for a lot of the time in managing the debate on the floor and working with democrats as well as the administration, democrats in the house and putting together that final
6:53 pm
legislation. >> why did you lose this election for your final term? >> lots of reasons. it was a bad election year, a lot of folks lost in 2006. it was a bad election year in pennsylvania. are gubernatorial candidate lost by 20 points. unfortunately, we had a raft of scandals in pennsylvania, not related to me, but to members of congress. one that had been out there for awhile and another that occurred two weeks before the election were a member of congress, his daughters office was raided by the fbi. the scandal and all that was going on in washington with the scandals there it made republicans a bad brand. there are things i did. i was not shy about standing up and taking on the issues i care about, whether it was national security or the abortion issue.
6:54 pm
i was the leader on all lot of those issues which are very divisive. the marriage issue, which is particularly divisive. i touched the third rail of politics on social issues and social security. in 2005, when president bush called for us to try to change social security, i ran to the ramparts and was on the floor of the senate and around pennsylvania, i did a whole series of town meetings about how i had to fix pennsylvania. pennsylvania is the second oldest per-capita state in the country. that effort fell flat on its face and so did die. other things went on. i was in the republican leadership. when i got elected the first couple of times, i was seen as someone who was out there shaking things up. i continue to do so in leadership, but now i'm part of leadership and you are part of
6:55 pm
that as opposed to seen as outside that. that and probably more would create an environment which is not good in an election year where the president was sitting in the mid '30's in popularity in pennsylvania. >> you often learn more from losing and winning. did you learn anything? >> that are the lot of things. first of all, the most important lesson was losing is not the worst thing that can happen. not standing up and doing what you think is right is the worst thing that can happen to you. i don't like losing, i can say pretty clear that i never look back and i never felt bad. i was not sad at all. when i found out the only thing i wanted to do -- i feel this way every time i go back to pennsylvania is to just get up and say thank you. thank you for given the son of
6:56 pm
an italian immigrant who had zero name recognition when he ran for office and was able to go out and take on the issues i felt were important for the country and the people of pennsylvania supported me and i just want to go out and say thank you. that's what i do every time in pennsylvania. thank you for giving me this incredible blessing, to be able to do this. the second big lesson was, i'll say pennsylvanian gave me not while always wanted, but what i needed. i was 48 years old, had been in congress 16 years. at the time, we had six children we were raising. i needed to get home. it was a great blessing to me to be there over the last four years, at a time my children were going through some very important formative years. i'm not beating myself up to much, but it was a busy time.
6:57 pm
it was always squeezing it in. i was able to coach little league and do the things that you should do as a partner, as a parent, as a father. that was an important lesson for me and obviously a good thing for my family. >> let me ask you about your face. you've been -- let me ask you about your faceith. what does it mean to be a catholic? >> america is based on what madison called the perfect remedy. people of fsiath and no faith are allowed into the public square to extol their point of view. they have the right to come and articulate that. i believe that. i believe that's why we get
6:58 pm
along so well. people from countries that if you -- i grew up in western pennsylvania and there are a lot of croatians there. i never -- when i was a kid, i never knew serbians and croatians didn't get along. because the ones i knew did. this idea there was a division was foreign to me. why? because we've welcomed everyone then. faith needs to be welcomed back into the public square. i'm very forthright about my faith because it did it for my conscience. it has an influence on how i see the world. i'm very upfront about that. you see a lot of politicians say i parked my face -- do they really? if that is the case, what does motivate you? what informs your conscious?
6:59 pm
what are you -- what informed conscience? i think there is an disingenuousness about it and i think that -- maybe this is something you learn more from losing and winning, i think the public has a right to know who you are why you think the way you do, and no guessing game as to what santorum is going to do on this, that or the other. not to say there aren't nuances and you can look to my record and see lots of times depending on the bill, you have to use provincial judgment. the teachings of your faith or reason don't always come to the same conclusion because of the facts in certain senses being different. but how you approach -- backs and circumstances being different. it's important to be transparent about that. >> you told a catholic group you
7:00 pm
were appalled that john f. kennedy wanted to separate church and state in his 1960 campaign. what surprised you about that? >> he took a concept which is now a famous one thomas jefferson's wall of separation. the wall of separation. it was a letter he wrote in 18 01, 11 years after the constitution was ratified. -- 1801, 11 years after the constitution was ratified. wait a minute, 21 years. no 11 years. the latter to be dan barry that this -- danbury was about the government interfering with religion.
7:01 pm
religion can impact government. that was never the intention of jefferson. it was clearly not his intention. it was not the intention of madison. it was the perfect remedy. bring it into the public square. this was exacerbated by the thinking of the 1960's and 1970's. they have no right to claim truth in the public square. be motivated by is de facto banned from the public discourse. our founders would be spinning in their graves if they understood that that is how their words were twisted. everyone is in. as a catholic, i subscribe to
7:02 pm
the faith and reason. it is to wings -- two wings. they allow you to fly. you can arrive there by right reason as well as you can buy it. i applied both to my looking at these issues. it is important for folks in public life who are asking or potentially asking to lead. who are you and why do you believe what you believe? >> there is one issue that intersects religion and politics including in pennsylvania. bishops dedo not want to served communion to catholics who are for abortion rights. >> i am a catholic in public
7:03 pm
life not a clergyman. that is a private discussion between the bishop and the communicant. i would leave it at that and i trust the bishops to handle those things and for politicians to stand out of it? . >> what shaped your views on abortion? >> the seed was planted by my parents, who were pro-life. i was ambivalent on this issue when i first ran for congress. i was a 30 year-old guy who grew up in the 1960's and 1970's and have friends with different opinions on the issue. it was one of these things that bothered me and i stayed away from it and never took much of a position. i was sort of agnostic. i was uncomfortable with it. most americans are. they do not like it, but they
7:04 pm
see that we want to ban itl . it is a tough issue. i was dating my wife, whose father was a geneticist. i saw that as an opportunity to try to get an understanding of what were the facts and try to go through the science on this. i tried to use reason. and i did. it was inescapable to me that the tide in the womb is the time at the moment of the best child in the womb is the child at the time of conception. i found a moral inconsistency with that, and inconsistency that i have talked about some with famously over the last few months. it immediately brought me back to the dred scott decision where
7:05 pm
we look at people who said, even though they are human beings, we are not going to treat them with the same rights from the constitution. i could not sustain that from an argument point of view. it was not an issue when i was running for congress. the man i was running against was pro-choice. i do not know whether it was a good thing or a bad thing for me to be. i felt that that was where i had to go. >> would you overturn roe versus wade? >> absolutely. i think it was one of the greatest abominations in the history of the courts. it creates a legal fiction that a human thing -- that a human being is not a person simply because it happens to be in a particular place. if we do that -- the rationale that we are seeing played out in
7:06 pm
court decisions is that -- we saw it in the partial birth abortion case. if a child in the born can be killed, how about a child almost in -- a child in the womb can be killed how about a child almost in the womb? i said what about a child's but that is almost out of the womb? she spent 20 minutes try to answer the question. she said this is irrelevant. i said, this is exactly the point. the court says, it is based on who the child -- where the child is not who the child is. that is a legal fiction that is dehumanizing. we see that being applied to
7:07 pm
those in the margins of life, those who are in chronically ill states or children who are born and have small chances of survival. having gone through that in my own life with our last child we face all of these things. i can tell you that it has been a tough journey but it is one that i would never have passed up on to except life and take whatever life gives you. >> how did you meet your wife? >> i met her at the law firm. she had been offered a summer associate position at the firm. i was asked by a friend who could not make the recruiting trip to combat her to say yes. we were going to take -- could not make the recruiting trip to convince her to say yes. she pleaded with me and i said
7:08 pm
no. so i went and i met my wife and the rest is history. >> married how many years? >> 21 years in june. >> you have eight children, seven living. you lost a son. what happened? >> i had just been through -- and karen had just been through -- the first time i had ever spoken on the floor of the senate on the issue of abortion was on the issue of partial birth abortion. it moved me when i found out about this. i had made the conscious decision not to stick your head out of the thoughtful on these issues. when you do, you get painted into a picture. once you do something like that, you are painted as an
7:09 pm
ultra conservative because you dare talk about issues like like an abortion and marriage and things like that, which are taboo in the mainstream media. i kept my head down and i saw this happening and i saw this procedure. the president would veto a bill like that. i felt i had to go out there and do something. the man who is bill it was, bob smith, was up for reelection six weeks after this debate was to occur in september of 1996. he did not want to be about in a contentious pro-life battle before his election in new hampshire. he was looking for someone to take over. everybody stepped back and i was standing there. i took the reins. that was a time when i was out fighting to ban a procedure that
7:10 pm
was used late in pregnancy when the pregnancy had gone awry, there was something wrong with the child. i will never forgets on a couple of occasions with dianne feinstein and barbara boxer talking about the fact that karen was pregnant. i did not know whether the child would be well or not, it was still my son or my daughter and i would love them whatever the case was. we had a sonogram and the doctor look over at us and said your son has a fatal defect and is going to die. talk about the world crashing down on you. obviously, we were heartbroken and we were angry. i was particularly angry. i thought, here i am fighting or all of these little kids, and this is the thanks i get from god.
7:11 pm
what we felt was necessary was weak spot for the life of our child. -- we did what we felt was necessary, we thought were the life of our child. i learned about surgery in uterol . this was a he still be that that i thought might be able to be prepared -- be able to be prepared. we had the procedure done and it was successful. as a result of the procedure karen got an infection in the womb. she said, give me some antibiotics. it is in her womb, and the infection was going to cause her to go into labor because the body which expelled the
7:12 pm
infection and deliver the child. little gabriel was born in pittsburgh in october of 1996. he lived two hours. i would say what a great blessing that only new love. he was with us for those two hours and we celebrated his life as short as it was. we made sure his brothers and sisters saw him and knew that he was real and had the closure we felt was necessary. karen had been a nurse for many years. one of the things she learned was the importance of recognizing the child, the humanity of that child and for the family to recognize that and to grieve and to recognize the loss. i can say with respect to our children who went through that, gabriel was seen as a great blessing a little angel in
7:13 pm
heaven to help in times of stress. there was that closure and god has been good. he has turned gabriels life -- karen in the up writing a book about what we went through called "letters to gabriel." that book sold 25,000 copies. there is not a week that goes by that i am not out on the stop somewhere and someone says, i read your wife's book and it has helped me so much through the grieving process of losing a child. i would say to my kids, if they can have as much impact on the world for good as their brother did in two hours, they will be doing well. >> your oldest children is 19 -- your oldest child is 19 and the youngest is 2 years old. she is a special needs child. >> karen was pregnant and doing
7:14 pm
the prenatal testing and the sonogram. they said, there is something not quite right and we cannot figure it out. when bella was delivered at 35 weeks, they had heard brought to the nicu to see what was wrong and they were not sure. they had to do some genetic testing. it was four days later that we found out she had a condition that means you have 23 chromosome pairs. you get one each from the mother and the father. in her case, she got two. that can cause severe birth
7:15 pm
defects. in most cases, the child dies. only some cancer by. the most common is down syndrome. this condition has a much lower survival rate. we were on the internet as fast as you can imagine and on the statistics. bella was lucky that she was born alive because 90% of the children with this disorder cannot survive birth. the 10% that do survive die within the first year, most within the first few months. we were told to have low expectations. when she was sent home after 10 days, she was sent home on hospice care. we were told to prepare for her to die. to my wife's credit, she never accepted that.
7:16 pm
she immediately was planning on her trip home. she signed up for pediatric visits. we were going to do everything we can to give bella the best light possible as long as god was going to give her to us. when the kids saw her coming home, they put up a big sign welcoming her. every week, we would have a birthday celebration. because we're not going to have years, we are going to have weeks. every week we had a birthday party. it back to the point up a month and we said we will do it every month. we had birthday parties every month. now she is going to be three years old in may. we have gone through a lot. but she has been a great blessing to us.
7:17 pm
i always say that she makes us better. her humanity, the gift of love that she is. in the eyes of the world, she cannot do a lot. she cannot see herself. -- feed herself. she does not talk, she makes noises. she may not ever be able to talk or walk, but she can love. she is infectious in our family. she is a great gift. >> there is no easy way to go from that to my next question. as you think about this presidential campaign, how do you get the nomination? what is your strategy? >> just put 1 foot in front of the other. i feel like this is a situation where i had no intention of doing this in the first place.
7:18 pm
things just sort of happen. if this is what is supposed to happen, you just go out there and you take them one at a time. i did not know any other way to do it. there is no grand strategy. you go out to iowa and see how well you can do that. then you go out to new hampshire. there is no one is the strategy. you pick this state and do well here and there. my feeling is that if you are going to do this, go out and compete in every state. every state bring something a little different. there are elements of the party and elements of the independents in the states who can vote. you are going to have to appeal to southern republicans and midwest and republicans. i am not interested in developing a strategy to win the primary and not be in a position to win the general. i want to say, we have done well
7:19 pm
everywhere. that is a good, strong basis for us to be successful and make the case. the strategy is, work hard. that was something that might bother who came here with my grandfather and grew up in a company town in western pennsylvania -- the one thing he hammered home to me is hard work. there is no substitute for hard work. that is the case here. some people will have more money and more name recognition. hard work is the key to success in america. we decided to pull the trigger on this thing. maybe people with better name recognition will get more media attention. but no one is going to outworked us. that goes for karen and the family. we decided to do this and there is only one way to do it.
7:20 pm
that is the strategy. we are getting to the point where we are going to have to make some decisions. i feel comfortable that the message and the messenger are getting some traction out there in these early primary states. the big question for me is the impact on my family and how i can balance those endless, which is not any -- to balance those entranced -- interests. that is not an easy thing to do. once i have had an easy little time, we will make a decision one way or another. >> how do you assess the republican field with the names mentioned lately? >> i am more impressed with the republican field that i was in 2008.
7:21 pm
there are people who are good on issues. there was not so one -- someone who was the whole package. there was not someone who had a long consistent record on conservatism across the board. we have a better reflection of the party in this group than in 2008. if i felt like there was someone who was really good, i would not be thinking of doing this. with both my experience and my track record and my willingness to take on the tough issues and my ability to go out and communicate those issues in a way that was compelling in a state like pennsylvania and easier states that pennsylvania that we have to win to win the presidency, it is important to
7:22 pm
have someone who can do all those things -- be a good communicator be someone with the courage of their convictions and take that vision for the future of our country. we have some folks out there that i like in i am impressed with. i think it will be an interesting primary if i decide to get into it. >> senator rick santorum, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. it is always good to be here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> several potential 2012 republican candidates were in iowa for the conservative principles pac. steve king a range the conference to encourage constitutional conservatives to run for office. now a speech from newt gingrich
7:23 pm
and haley barbour. thank you all very much. i am glad to be a. that me say to all of you, we are on the fast, hard clock here. steve told me i have 16 minutes and 48 seconds. i told him i should have lager. he told me i was lucky he was letting me do this without an interpreter. [laughter] >> i heard them cheering for you. >> thank you for being here. i want to talk to you because it is a short. bankf time. for 2012, it is -- i want to talk to you because it is a short period of time.
7:24 pm
for 2012, it is crucial that we elect a new president. the only way is for us to make sure that, like the 2010 campaign the 2012 campaign is focused on policy. focus on the policies of this administration which are bad for the economy bad for job creation, and focus on what the right policies would be. the american pple agree with us on policy. they showed in the 2010 election the most massive repudiation of any president's policies in the history of the united states for good reason. let me just say, that is the one thing we want to be focused on. i will describe it this way. some of you are old enough to remember ed sullivan. maybe a couple of you.
7:25 pm
they say one time and sullivan had the most popular television show in the country -- ed sullivan had the most popular television show in the country. one night, he had conrad hilton on his show. he w the bill gates of the day. and sullivan turned to him as he walked out and say if you could only tell the american people one thing, what would it be? conrad hilton said, but the shower curtain iide the back up? th tub. [laughter] there is a man who knew what was important to him. wh is important to us is to have a new president january 20 of 2013. [applause] we cannot lose focus on that. that is why i say this election needs to be about policy. when president obama was elected, the american people
7:26 pm
thought they were going to focus laser light on the economy on growing the economy and job creation. the policies of this administration, in every case, has made it harder to create jobs and less likely to have economic growth. the president has been calling for the largest tax increase in american history. tax increases fall primarily on employers. he fought for it for the whole two years. his first two years we had haiti ov the economy the largest health -- largest we had a hang over the pot be the largest tax increase in american history -- had any over the economy the largest tax increase in americahistory. no republican senator would vote for this huge tax increase. he threw in the towel and voted
7:27 pm
with the republicans. our friends in the news media the ones in the back talking -- [applause] our friends in the news media said this heralded a move to the center like bill clinton's triangulatn, like obama had learned his lesson. it reminded me of president reagan, my old boss. he is to say the first place in the democratic playbook was to take up the metal and run around the left end. -- the middle and run around the left end. in the state of the union address, he still said he wanted that tax increase and that he would try to get it. his budget called for $1.30 trillion of tax increases on the american people.
7:28 pm
$90 billion in the increases on the oil and gas industry. who is going to pay for that? exn? that is going to be paid by the people who are pumping gas into their cars. it makes economic growth less likely and job creation more difficult. the same is true in spending. the obama administration is populated by people who have unlimited in limited government -- limitless government. they think a bigger government means a bigger economy. a bigger government means a smaller economy. [applause] when the government sucks all the money out of the economy how is the private sector supposed to create jobs?
7:29 pm
the date on this is simple. when government spending goes up, private investment -- the date on this is simple -- data on this is simple. when private investment goes up unemployment goes down. private investment goes up, more people are working. remember that is our goal. when we talk about cutting spending we are talking about cutting spending for our children and grandchildren. we are talking about cutting spending because of the effects on the deficit and the debts. . we need to cut spending to grow the economy. your family cannot spend itself rich. the government cannot spend itself rich either.
7:30 pm
if you took the president also budget after the move to the metiddle, it called for the deficit to go up $1.60 trillion. just imagine you are running your business that way taking a and 43% less than you spend. -- taking in 43% less than you spend. if you wrote a book, you would start it with chapter 11. [applause] it is not just capture- not just taxes and spending. look at health care. steve was up here talking about health care. the government run health care system is not in the interest of anybody in the night -- in the united states except the government. that is what we will get if we get obamacare. i have been in these wars were
7:31 pm
years and years. betsy is going to speak after me. she was deeply involved in the hillary-care issue. i never thought the point of alth care was to make health insurance premiums go up. how do employers hire more people when they do not know what their obligations or costs for health care of those employees will be. obama's policies hurt job creation stymie economic growth and perhaps the worst is his energy policy. the obama energy policy is to drive uphe cost of energy so that americans will use less of it. think about it. that is their policy. i can remember president obama himself when he was a candidate for presint interviewed by the
7:32 pm
"san francisco chronicle." he said, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. necessarily skyrocket. the estimate was 30% to 50%. how you grow the economy when costs are going up for businesses and families? that is what they are trying to do. it is really environmental policy not energy policy. a real energy policy would be more american energy. that is what we need in our country. [applae] as gasoline blows by $3.50 a gallon rememberow this administration has shut down oil production in the gulf of mexico. in the gulf, we produce 30% of the domestic production of oil in the united states.
7:33 pm
the administration quickly announced that this week and last week we gave to permits for drilling in the gulf. you had to read the fine print to find out they were not permits for new wells. they work permits tresume drilling on wells they had forced them to stop drilling on. we need more oil. we need more gas. we need more coal. we need more nuclear. we need more american energy. [applause] that includes alternatives. my state is a center for biofuels. we have an ethanol plant in mississippi. we generate energy from other things. from would -- from wood, from
7:34 pm
waste. we need all of the above. when we talk about more american energy, we need all of the above. we need efficiently and conservation. from the time the british dropped anger in jamestown what of our advantages has been -- dropped angerchor in jamestown one of our advantages has been abundant energy. we need more. [applause] psychiatrists say it is a mistake to stifle the urge to applaud. [laughter] if it is not bad for you, it is bad for me. i appreciate your perseverance. [laughter] you can see as we look through
7:35 pm
the policies of this administration why we want to the next election to be about policy. these are the wrong policies. these policies make it harder for us to create jobs. we should not ever forgets that the goal is not to cut spending for the sake of cutting spending. the goal is to grow the economy. the goal is to return to the chance where every young man and woman can live the american dream and see the opportunities in front of them. when we talk about these policies i urge you to remember the most important thi. cutting spending is the means to an end. the end is to can you to grow our economy to continue to improve the quality of life for
7:36 pm
americans. my old friend and fellow mississippian, fred smith the ceo and founder of federal express has a great saying. he says the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. [laughter] the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. the main thing is economic growth and job creation for our people. [applause] that will solve a multitude -- do the math on what 4.5% growth in gdp would do for our budget deficit. look at ronald reagan's time after the 1978 to 1982 recessionary. period.
7:37 pm
the economy was growing 9%. this economys growing 2.8%. most of that growth is because of this gigantic bill louche of federal spending. -- deluge of federal spending. we need to grow the private economy. that needs to be our primary focus. growing the economy takes a change of policy. why is it worth so much? think about the people who came to iowa or the people who came to mississippi or the people came to america. seeking religious freedom. many of them, yes. theylso knew what ronald reagan knew. religious freedom and religious -- religious freedom and political freedom are intertwined with economic freedom.
7:38 pm
[applaus with the power to make our own decisions, to have a country wher anywhere anybody can make the most of their god-given talents and there will be a reward for that in a market oriented capitalistic system. that system has created more wealth more opportunity a greater, stronger, more porful country and a culture that had never been imagined before in the history of the world. it was created right here in america. an excdingly exceptional country. i wish we had some people in this administration who had signed the front side of a
7:39 pm
paycheck in their lives. [applause] some people who understand it is the private sector that creates wealth. thgovernment has no money except what it takes from the taxpayers. we need taxpayers to have the opportunity. they do not need the government elite in washington to tell them what to do. this administration to often thinks we are too stupid to take care of our -- too often thinks we ought to banks to bid to take care of ourselves. they need -- this gov administration thinks we are too stupid to take care of our
7:40 pm
citizens. i am grateful for you being here and for having the chance to say t you that we need to make sure our children and grandchildren inherits the same country we inherited. th is what this election will be about. thank you very much. [applause] l analyst for the fox news channel. ladies and gentlemen, speaker newt gingrich. [applause] >> first of all, it is great to
7:41 pm
be here. i am proud of what steve king has done in bringing this together. i am proud of what steve king is doing in washington to defund and stop obamacare, where he is playing a major leadership role. i am glad to be back. i will probably reinforce for steve that what he is doing is really important. we have to draw the line in the sand this year. we have to stop obamacare from being implemented this year. this is a major step toward a washington controlled, bureaucratically defined america in which some bureaucrat tells you what you can do. if you go to health you will see that there is a big poster that
7:42 pm
you can get and download for free. it has 1968 specific grants of power to the secretary of health and human services and other washington bureaucrat in obamacare. you look at that list and say to yourself is there anybody in this room who honestly believes that the federal bureaucracy can implement that level of detail control over your health care, including what the secretary of human services shall define as the characteristics of measuring your teeth for oral care. i spoke to an orthodontist and said how many of you believe secretary sebelius has the knowledge to define the to coverage of oral care. they broke up laughing. it is not a laughing matter. steve king understands that. he is turning up the heat in washington. i hope all of you will continue
7:43 pm
encouraging them to do that. i hope you will listen to him and all his leadership on this important issue. [applause] we are delighted to be back here. she spent four years getting to know i will winters better. she is from western wisconsin so she thought of it as going south for the winter. i am optimistic. i believe that in 2012, we could win an historic election and we could end the 80 year dominance of the left and fundamentally recent this country back to a center-right government reflecting the core values of the american people. [applause]
7:44 pm
i think there are three large topics on which we can recent america. the first is values. this is truly a center right country, not a left wing country. the second is the economy. this is a country that favors jobs paychecks, and economic growth. the third is economic -- is national security. gallup asked the question, do you believe that the constitution and the declaration of independence make america an exceptional country or do you believe we are a normal country? 80byby 80 to 18, the american people said we are an exceptional country. the 18 includes many of our
7:45 pm
bureaucrats, many of our news media. the fight we are in, where we outnumber them better than 4 to 1 is to say we actually mean it. to say that every class k-12 and every tax paid college and university should teach the declaration of independence -- [applause] i do not care what the aclu says they should teach it accurately and they should explain what the founding fathers meant by saying "we hold these truths" -- not philosophies or ideologies -- "
7:46 pm
to be self-evident and we are in doubt by our creator with certain inalienable rights." some say we should stay away from values and stay away from social issues. if you do not start with values or start by establishing who we are as americans, the rest of it does not matter. life is not just about money. [applause] second, we have to talk about the economy. it's a matter of values. america works when americans are working. america works when you can provide for your family. i want to create wealth so that every american has a chance for a better future. they are being productive and engaged in useful work. they are doing something that is meaningful for them. we have to get this economy growing again. we have to focus on cutting
7:47 pm
spending in washington, getting power back out of washington, controlling the bureaucrats who are trying to control us, and making it desirable and successful to invest and create jobs in america so that we can have a better future. the president in brazil got it exactly backward. present obama goes to brazil and says to brazilians, i am glad you are drilling for oil offshore. then he says, i hope we can be your customer. that is exactly backwards. i want us to create american energy in america. i want resilience to be our customers. -- i want the people of brazil to be our customers. [applause] the obama economic model is borrow money from the chinese and give it to the brazilians.
7:48 pm
our model ought to be and that in america create american jobs -- our model ought to be create american jobs and sell products to the chinese bid is the opposite of the model of obama. -- create american jobs and sell products to the chinese. it is the opposite model of obama. i help to balance the american budget for four straight years. -- i helped to balance the budgets for four straight years. this shocked so many people in washington. we quit spending. it is amazing how much that to you get to a balanced budget he quit spending. we had the slowest increase in modern times.
7:49 pm
the four years i was speaker we did not raise taxes. we cut taxes. we had the largest capital gains tax in american history. we wanted to put people back to work. we designed tax cuts that made it possible to create businesses. if you want to balance this federal budget, the north 1 onenumbernumber thing thing you can do is have people back to work so they are not getting food stamp or unemployment or medicaid. the difference in spending and revenue in that that is the number one step back to a
7:50 pm
balanced budgets. there are things you want the government to stop doing. you can probably disband 2/3 of the department of energy. we would have more energy. [applause] we have to focus on a serious conversation about national security. there were articles last week say i was one way or the other about libya. each day i was on television, i was responding to where the president was that way. there were contradictions because one day he was here and the other day he was over here. they can say i was commenting both ways. that is true. i was trying to follow him up. if you had asked me if we should jump in, i would have said no.
7:51 pm
once we jump in the lateke i say to swim as fast as you can. it is not a contradiction if you are already in the lake. on march 3, he said gaddafi has to go. he pitted the prestige and power of the united states against a dictator that has been anti- american for over 40 years. i believe the only rational objective of the current intervention is to defeat gaddafi as rapidly as possible. i would do it by using egyptian jordanian ground forces as advisers with the rebels using all western air power as decisively as power. a no-fly zone does not just mean airplanes. i think this is linguistically stupid.
7:52 pm
i have never seen a flying tanks. [laughter] if they want to create a suppressions own to defeat the libyan military, then the honest and say that is what we're doing. it is a totally different process. once you get involved, i believe you get involved decisively. you win quickly and minimize casualties. you get it over quickly. you say you are getting rid of gaddafi because you want his military to get up every morning to the simple message that he is gone. [applause] if you are of the libyan military and wondering if the americans are serious and whether you can hold out -- you watch our white house arguing. i want to say to the things about foreign policy.
7:53 pm
we have to risk the lives of young americans. we have to have the courage to tell the truth about who is trying to kill us. it is not a random behavior. it is radical islamists motivated by deep belief against our situation. -- against our civilization. [applause] we need a commander in chief with the courage to tell the truth, not a spectator in chief confused about whether his job is kicking a soccer ball or leading the united states. last week on national security, i am and historian. --lastly on national security, i am and historian. someone explained the unit in nations and arab league. i went back because as a historian, i did not remember this. we were up at independence hall
7:54 pm
with the constitution and the declarations of independence. i went back to check. you can do this with your own copy of the constitution. i could not find the arab league anywhere in the constitution. [laughter] i found congress. i found the idea that the president might consult with the united states congress. but to say to americans that he is relying on a collection of dictators called the arab league and a corrupt institution called the united nations -- he did not get around to consulting the congress. that is it fundamentally false model of american government. [applause] people ask how quick you could start turning things around. we are working on a project from the first day.
7:55 pm
all of you who have watched inauguration's know that the president goes inside to have lunch with the congressional leadership after the inauguration. what if there was a one hour break in the president went into a room in the capital and signed executive orders that were already discussed and on the internet that had already been drafted by veterans from the reagan and bush administrations? you could do this within minutes to begin turning the government around. the first executive order might be to abolish every bizarre -- czar in the white house as of that minute. [applause] the second executive order might be to reimpose ronald reagan's mexico city policy and abolish any federal money going anywhere in the world to pay for abortion.
7:56 pm
[applause] the third executive order might be to reinstitute george w. bush's policy on enforcing the right of conscience and that no government can force you to perform an abortion or any other act against europe religious beliefs. [applause] a fourth executive order might say to the state department that you will allow companies to designate their own capital. the only country in the world where the united states refuses to allow the country to define its own capital is the democracy of israel. it is profoundly wrong to discriminate against the israeli government's right to do that. [applause] imagine that during the campaign next year, there was a web site called
7:57 pm
where people could submit their ideas. you have enormous capacity to direct things and say what to do or not to. imagine during the year the citizens found things that should be fixed and put them on the web. it would not be a secret. then we would have smart people evaluate them. imagine that by next october of 2012 you had 200 executive orders that smart people all over the country have come up with. there were technically written. on inauguration day, you just have to put them out. everyone would know what was coming. it would be transparent. it would be the sort of thing that obama promised but did not deliver on. [applause] you could even allow c-span in
7:58 pm
the room to cover you signing executive orders. you could post on the internet what was done. when i was speaker i used to check off as we did things in the congress. there is a huge difference between obama and the left and 80% of the american people. we can turn it around with remarkable speed if we have courage. you are coming here today and helping steve king is a first step toward that kind of courage. thank you all very, very much. [applause] >> tomorrow, a political
7:59 pm
roundtable on what is ahead for congress as it returns. the former cia operations officer discusses terror concerns in the wake of u.s. involvement in libya. ben mckay talks about the national flood insurance program and how uncertainty about congressional funding for the program is impacting homeowners in flood-prone regions of the country. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. next q&a with charles blow. in british prime minister david cameron. after that, and rode to the white house with a possible presidential candidate. ♪


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on